GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS

In recent years, legislators in all fifty states have given grandparents rights to petition for visitation privileges with grandchildren that can be enforced over parental objections. Grandparent visitation rights reflect an effort to protect meaningful relationships children enjoy with nonparental caregivers, enlist the assistance of extended family when the child's nuclear family is disrupted, and defend the interests of grandparents themselves. This psycholegal analysis explores the direct and indirect consequences of grandparent visitation statutes for family functioning. Statutory provisions are summarized, and the effects of these statutes are evaluated in light of what is known about the role of grandparents in child development, how courts evaluate children's "best interests" in grandparent visitation disputes, and how these statutes can alter family functioning in informal ways. The authors conclude that there are risks as well as benefits to children and families in grandparent visitation statutes, and suggest directions for procedural and statutory reform.     

Irrelevance of the soft budget constraint for the shortage phenomenon

Kornai's thesis that shortage results from demand expansions bred by the soft budget constraint, derives from his implicit assumption that price regimes of input and output firms are different. Since any firm is both an input and an output firm, which discards the assumption as logically untenable, excess demand can only turn up because of lower than contracted inputs of labor and management that are not offset by an adequate downward adjustment of earnings. Expansions of demand that appear to be autonomous, are incited by uncertain deliveries of inputs, that is, by inefficiency (of output firms) as well. A by far the largest part of excess demand can be explained by state preferences for fast growth. As planners are more successful in generating investment, and the ensuing consumer, demand than in expanding production, shortage is inevitable regardless of the character of the firms' budget constraints.     

The judicial role in life-sustaining medical treatment decisions.

Although there has been speculation regarding the pervasiveness and nature of judicial decisions regarding life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), no attempt has been made to empirically assess their prevalence or the issues they address. An exploratory study utilizing a mail survey of a nationwide random sample (N = 905) of state trial court judges was conducted to provide initial information regarding this decision-making process. Twenty-two percent of the responding judges had heard at least one LSMT case, and judicial review did not appear endemic to particular states. The number of judges hearing LSMT cases dropped from 1975 to 1981 but has increased since then. Three major issues predominate: patient competency, appointment of a surrogate decisionmaker, and resolution of the ultimate issue of forgoing LSMT. Relatively few cases either contested a prior directive's validity or involved imposing sanctions for instituting or forgoing LSMT. Although subject to different interpretations, the results suggest the courts are having a significant impact on certain aspects of the LSMT decision-making process. However, the infrequency with which any one judge is called upon to make an LSMT decision causes concern about the judiciary's ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. With their potential for a profound effect on the actions of health care providers, greater attention to this decision-making process is warranted.